Jeremy Paxman's interview with Russell Brand

[Jack_]

From Newsnight.

3YR4CseY9pk

Awesome.

:worship:

[arista]

Yes I watched it on BBC2HD

Tricky Interview


Yes Jack I am sure you find his view Romantic.


But I want to buy my Bread and Milk
The cogs are Turning

There is No such Revolution.


It can only come after a Nuke War

[Stu]

What an absolute hero.

His discourse is obviously very romantic but there is nothing to what he is saying that cannot conceivably be accomplished by the human race. Passing it up as the fairytale wonderland of a stand up comedian only fosters the sort of apathetic complacency that will impede our inevitable and long overdue spiritual and social revolution.

[Z]

His message is well meaning but I find he uses archaic English to cover up the fact he doesn't know as much as he likes to pretend he does. Criticise the system... take up a position on a political magazine team... but have some ideas behind your opinions, you can't be an armchair critic and then go into an interview like that without some suggestions as to how to make things better, rather than just slating the status quo - that gets us nowhere.

Jeremy Paxman seemed to really want to push him into expressing his ideas and instead got a lot of gibberish in return.

[Stu]

His message is well meaning but I find he uses archaic English to cover up the fact he doesn't know as much as he likes to pretend he does. Criticise the system... take up a position on a political magazine team... but have some ideas behind your opinions, you can't be an armchair critic and then go into an interview like that without some suggestions as to how to make things better, rather than just slating the status quo - that gets us nowhere.

Jeremy Paxman seemed to really want to push him into expressing his ideas and instead got a lot of gibberish in return.
I didn't find it that hard to understand him.

He favors a resource based, socialist leaning economy the strives to distribute the wealth of nations more equally than the current system which would require more compassion and help for the underprivileged and working classes and less for the corporations who he sees as being the unfair benefactors of endless second chances, political bias and monetary bailouts.

In addition he adheres to conservationist principals of protecting the planet and using what it has to offer us wisely.

He sees the current political paradigm as being unhelpful background periphery that needs to be done away with altogether as all the current mainstream choices seem to exist more or less to propagate the currently existing, defunct cultural narrative. To that extent he promotes not apathy but non participation in the current system in an effort to bring about a brand new one that would favor his principals more - principals most sane people would agree with. A more cooperative, less heavy handed government that exists more or less as administrators of simple spiritual beliefs and wealth and resource distributors.

So plenty of ideas. I think he espouses his admittedly ambitious views with great clarity. What you are hinting at and what Paxman seemed to be looking forward to was specifics on the revolution. This I find confusing. Should Brand have given a step by step breakdown of the global overhaul plans that included prospective party names and a time to meet in Trafalgar square to blaze a few fatties and rock the V masks?

I'm not trying to be facetious here - well I kind of am - I'm just genuinely curious. I see this trend all the time. Any time someone from outside the political paradigm looks in with suggestions they are met with fierce criticism that stems from the innocuous but still pointless "well you've never done politics yourself" to "what are you cracking on about mate with your daft hair and naive ideals, we have real plans here - look, we've typed them out and everything it's all in our manifesto!".

Like I said I believe one of the main things impeding this revolution from occurring is the thought that a revolution is in and of itself naive, unspecific and cannot occur.

brand new
There is your party name, for starters.

[Nedusa]

I didn't find it that hard to understand him.

He favors a resource based, socialist leaning economy the strives to distribute the wealth of nations more equally than the current system which would require more compassion and help for the underprivileged and working classes and less for the corporations who he sees as being the unfair benefactors of endless second chances, political bias and monetary bailouts.

In addition he adheres to conservationist principals of protecting the planet and using what it has to offer us wisely.

He sees the current political paradigm as being unhelpful background periphery that needs to be done away with altogether as all the current mainstream choices seem to exist more or less to propagate the currently existing, defunct cultural narrative. To that extent he promotes not apathy but non participation in the current system in an effort to bring about a brand new one that would favor his principals more - principals most sane people would agree with. A more cooperative, less heavy handed government that exists more or less as administrators of simple spiritual beliefs and wealth and resource distributors.

So plenty of ideas. I think he espouses his admittedly ambitious views with great clarity. What you are hinting at and what Paxman seemed to be looking forward to was specifics on the revolution. This I find confusing. Should Brand have given a step by step breakdown of the global overhaul plans that included prospective party names and a time to meet in Trafalgar square to blaze a few fatties and rock the V masks?

I'm not trying to be facetious here - well I kind of am - I'm just genuinely curious. I see this trend all the time. Any time someone from outside the political paradigm looks in with suggestions they are met with fierce criticism that stems from the innocuous but still pointless "well you've never done politics yourself" to "what are you cracking on about mate with your daft hair and naive ideals, we have real plans here - look, we've typed them out and everything it's all in our manifesto!".

Like I said I believe one of the main things impeding this revolution from occurring is the thought that a revolution is in and of itself naive, unspecific and cannot occur.


There is your party name, for starters.

Good Post...... Totally agree !!!!!

[arista]

"this revolution"



No way

[Z]

I didn't find it that hard to understand him.

He favors a resource based, socialist leaning economy the strives to distribute the wealth of nations more equally than the current system which would require more compassion and help for the underprivileged and working classes and less for the corporations who he sees as being the unfair benefactors of endless second chances, political bias and monetary bailouts.

In addition he adheres to conservationist principals of protecting the planet and using what it has to offer us wisely.

He sees the current political paradigm as being unhelpful background periphery that needs to be done away with altogether as all the current mainstream choices seem to exist more or less to propagate the currently existing, defunct cultural narrative. To that extent he promotes not apathy but non participation in the current system in an effort to bring about a brand new one that would favor his principals more - principals most sane people would agree with. A more cooperative, less heavy handed government that exists more or less as administrators of simple spiritual beliefs and wealth and resource distributors.

So plenty of ideas. I think he espouses his admittedly ambitious views with great clarity. What you are hinting at and what Paxman seemed to be looking forward to was specifics on the revolution. This I find confusing. Should Brand have given a step by step breakdown of the global overhaul plans that included prospective party names and a time to meet in Trafalgar square to blaze a few fatties and rock the V masks?

I'm not trying to be facetious here - well I kind of am - I'm just genuinely curious. I see this trend all the time. Any time someone from outside the political paradigm looks in with suggestions they are met with fierce criticism that stems from the innocuous but still pointless "well you've never done politics yourself" to "what are you cracking on about mate with your daft hair and naive ideals, we have real plans here - look, we've typed them out and everything it's all in our manifesto!".

Like I said I believe one of the main things impeding this revolution from occurring is the thought that a revolution is in and of itself naive, unspecific and cannot occur.


There is your party name, for starters.

I mean this in the best possible way, but I just don't have the energy to read and respond to your post properly :laugh:

He doesn't really give any actual answers to any of Paxman's questions though. He says that he thinks the system is broken. He makes a good point that the system keeps the oppressed oppressed and the elites elitist. Paxman wanted to know what Brand thought should be done about it, and he responded by repeating himself for 10 minutes, he didn't actually answer the question. I wasn't expecting a 5 point plan with diagrams and flip charts, but a simple overview of what he would do if he was able to reconstruct the political system in the country would have sufficed. I'm sure everyone reading this thread could give suggestions on what they would do if they could fix all the problems they see with the country (e.g. change the benefits system, be more environmentally friendly, free sex for everybody!!!... etc) but Brand went round in circles because he was being backed into a corner for once.

I don't take any issue with him taking an interest in politics, I'd much rather our celebrities, the people that so many of us look up to, were engaging, witty, interesting individuals like Russell Brand, I just wish he had more to say on the matter, that's all. I've seen this be posted across social media with people praising him for his words, but he doesn't even say all that much about anything, people are, as usual, taken in by his way with words rather than the meaning of his words. That's all.

The problem with wanting a revolution is that there needs to be an end goal. That's why there hasn't been one (yet) - people don't like the system as it is but nobody has any better, practical suggestions that aren't "yeah, **** the Tories!" or tutting about how terrible they are. People en masse don't know what they want, they just know what they don't want, and that's why there is no revolution in this country (yet).

[Marc]

~flowery writing~

[Stu]

I mean this in the best possible way, but I just don't have the energy to read and respond to your post properly :laugh:

He doesn't really give any actual answers to any of Paxman's questions though. He says that he thinks the system is broken. He makes a good point that the system keeps the oppressed oppressed and the elites elitist. Paxman wanted to know what Brand thought should be done about it, and he responded by repeating himself for 10 minutes, he didn't actually answer the question. I wasn't expecting a 5 point plan with diagrams and flip charts, but a simple overview of what he would do if he was able to reconstruct the political system in the country would have sufficed. I'm sure everyone reading this thread could give suggestions on what they would do if they could fix all the problems they see with the country (e.g. change the benefits system, be more environmentally friendly, free sex for everybody!!!... etc) but Brand went round in circles because he was being backed into a corner for once.

I don't take any issue with him taking an interest in politics, I'd much rather our celebrities, the people that so many of us look up to, were engaging, witty, interesting individuals like Russell Brand, I just wish he had more to say on the matter, that's all. I've seen this be posted across social media with people praising him for his words, but he doesn't even say all that much about anything, people are, as usual, taken in by his way with words rather than the meaning of his words. That's all.

The problem with wanting a revolution is that there needs to be an end goal. That's why there hasn't been one (yet) - people don't like the system as it is but nobody has any better, practical suggestions that aren't "yeah, **** the Tories!" or tutting about how terrible they are. People en masse don't know what they want, they just know what they don't want, and that's why there is no revolution in this country (yet).
Brand repeated himself out of necessity as I see it. It was Paxman more or less asking the same infantile "well what are you going to do about it?" questions over and over - wrapped up in this smug mirth about having to interview The Sun's 'Shagger Of The Year' about the political spectrum - that pushed Russell to have to eschew his values and suggestions again and again and again ad nauseam.

How do you know people were taken in by the color of his vocabulary and not by the contents of it? I'm sure there were a few fans who watched the video essentially because he is sexy and a bit funny but I imagine the vast majority of people the interview struck a chord with - myself included - had absolutely no trouble both understanding and empathizing with his pretty obvious, clearly spoken suggestions on how to improve the sociopolitical paradigm.

The end goal to Brand's revolution is clear. A resource based ...

[lostalex]

Who cares what Russell Brand has to say? he's a comedian, he's not meant to be taken seriously.

[the truth]

I think Brands strongly held Christian beliefs are a strong part of his desire for financial political cultural redistribution. He is smart enough to realise that to preach Christianity is frowned upon by the dumbed down masses, who equate Christianity and Islam as somehow equally morally repugnant, with the mindless moral relativism that pollutes us

I think his verbose outbursts do have great value however. These are pretty much Christian values and opinions in many ways. But he uses his knowledge and verbose eloquence to see the ideas to a new generation

He doesn't need to become a policy maker at this stage. Getting the moral argument right is key and he does on many issues. Though his drugs approach is often to liberal for my liking

He should really look to target the far right and challenge them in debate.
If he entered politics it would surely sap his energies to change the world
He needs to do more in external politics and this editorial position is a good start.

He does however need now to get more serious and improve his command of these subjects in a way Tony Benn would do or George Galloway. Not an easy task. but with his ability , his enormously powerful status, millions listen to his every word, plus access to powerful people with socialist leanings and the interweb communicating every idea to masses. It IS possible
who was Obama 10 years ago?

YES WE CAN

[the truth]

Who cares what Russell Brand has to say? he's a comedian, he's not meant to be taken seriously.

TOUCHE:sleep:

[Stu]

Who cares what Russell Brand has to say? he's a comedian, he's not meant to be taken seriously.
The best comedians are the ones who can espouse ideas and be funny about it. Bill Hicks is my hero and he was an [admittedly blunt] political philosopher simply masquerading as a comedian.

In any case your assessment that someone should never be taken seriously - no matter the content or context - because or their day job is complete claptrap and far too shallow and easy a conclusion to draw.

Politicians should conversely be taken seriously because they showed up to the rat race with a tie?
I think Brands strongly held Christian beliefs are a strong part of his desire for financial political cultural redistribution. He is smart enough to realise that to preach Christianity is frowned upon by the dumbed down masses, who equate Christianity and Islam as somehow equally morally repugnant, with the mindless moral relativism that pollutes us

I think his verbose outbursts do have great value however. These are pretty much Christian values and opinions in many ways. But he uses his knowledge and verbose eloquence to see the ideas to a new generation

He doesn't need to become a policy maker at this stage. Getting the moral argument right is key and he does on many issues. Though his drugs approach is often to liberal for my liking

He should really look to target the far right and challenge them in debate.
If he entered politics it would surely sap his energies to change the world
He needs to do more in external politics and this editorial position is a good start.

He does however need now to get more serious and improve his command of these subjects in a way Tony Benn would do or George Galloway. Not an easy task. but with his ability , his enormously powerful status, millions listen to his every word, plus access to powerful people with socialist leanings and the interweb communicating every idea to masses. It IS possible
who was Obama 10 years ago?

YES WE CAN
You sound like a Christian trying to claim Brand as one of your own. Is this the case?

From reading up on him Brand admires the mythic archetype of Jesus Christ but his spirituality is a clear unspecified, less-on-the-dogma blend of Vedantic traditions. He practices kundalini and has a well documented fondness for Hare Krishna.

A practicing, Bible reading Christian he is not. A lot of his views may have resulted from being raised in that environment but a lot of peoples views tend to correspond to those of Christs.

[Niamh.]

I didn't find it that hard to understand him.

He favors a resource based, socialist leaning economy the strives to distribute the wealth of nations more equally than the current system which would require more compassion and help for the underprivileged and working classes and less for the corporations who he sees as being the unfair benefactors of endless second chances, political bias and monetary bailouts.

In addition he adheres to conservationist principals of protecting the planet and using what it has to offer us wisely.

He sees the current political paradigm as being unhelpful background periphery that needs to be done away with altogether as all the current mainstream choices seem to exist more or less to propagate the currently existing, defunct cultural narrative. To that extent he promotes not apathy but non participation in the current system in an effort to bring about a brand new one that would favor his principals more - principals most sane people would agree with. A more cooperative, less heavy handed government that exists more or less as administrators of simple spiritual beliefs and wealth and resource distributors.

So plenty of ideas. I think he espouses his admittedly ambitious views with great clarity. What you are hinting at and what Paxman seemed to be looking forward to was specifics on the revolution. This I find confusing. Should Brand have given a step by step breakdown of the global overhaul plans that included prospective party names and a time to meet in Trafalgar square to blaze a few fatties and rock the V masks?

I'm not trying to be facetious here - well I kind of am - I'm just genuinely curious. I see this trend all the time. Any time someone from outside the political paradigm looks in with suggestions they are met with fierce criticism that stems from the innocuous but still pointless "well you've never done politics yourself" to "what are you cracking on about mate with your daft hair and naive ideals, we have real plans here - look, we've typed them out and everything it's all in our manifesto!".

Like I said I believe one of the main things impeding this revolution from occurring is the thought that a revolution is in and of itself naive, unspecific and cannot occur.


There is your party name, for starters.

:love:

You're like our very own Russell

[MTVN]

What Brand proposes is seriously radical though and could only take place on an international level and couldn't work within one country in the current global system, like Hollande in France has tried to put in a more egalitarian government with massive taxes on the wealthy and the big companies, and trying to roll back austerity measure, and it's not working anywhere near as effectively as he hoped

I do think Paxman is missing the point a bit by berating him for not voting though because there's not much chance he could get the change he wants in this country by doing so, it'd be pointless, and the whole "if you don't vote you can't complain" attitude is just very annoying

[Z]

Brand repeated himself out of necessity as I see it. It was Paxman more or less asking the same infantile "well what are you going to do about it?" questions over and over - wrapped up in this smug mirth about having to interview The Sun's 'Shagger Of The Year' about the political spectrum - that pushed Russell to have to eschew his values and suggestions again and again and again ad nauseam.

How do you know people were taken in by the color of his vocabulary and not by the contents of it? I'm sure there were a few fans who watched the video essentially because he is sexy and a bit funny but I imagine the vast majority of people the interview struck a chord with - myself included - had absolutely no trouble both understanding and empathizing with his pretty obvious, clearly spoken suggestions on how to improve the sociopolitical paradigm.

The end goal to Brand's revolution is clear. A resource based ...

Paxman was being irritating, but Brand wasn't answering his question so the interview went round in circles. Paxman asked him why people should take him seriously when he's never voted and he's not suggested any ideas, he's just stated the obvious that the system is broken. Brand proceeded to talk around the issue and tried to detract from it by derailing the conversation, that's why I think people are just blindly praising him - most of the comments were "what a legend, love his way with words" or "fancy him so much" - i.e. superficial comments that don't pay the slightest bit of attention to the content of the interview. Despite the way I've posted in this thread, I think his points are fantastic and I look forward to hearing more political thoughts from Russell - I just wish he'd gone into this interview prepared. He's clever enough to talk his way through something he doesn't want to talk about (as all the best politicians do, incidentally) - I think he's an interesting man with some fantastic ideas, he just needs to research them and formulate them instead of batting off direct questions with archaic, wordy sentences.

It's not that I don't understand him, it's that I don't think he understands what he's talking about, with regards to discussing a "revolution" or how the system is broken and needs to be fixed. His points are valid but there's no basis to them, what will happen in this revolution? What needs to happen for it to come about? What should people be doing?

[Nedusa]

Look ... Let's cut to the chase, the people with money and power regardless of how they got that money or power will never ever give it up without a fight.

Armed revolution probably is the only way ever to level the playing field , that's it pure and simple...!!!!

[Z]

Look ... Let's cut to the chase, the people with money and power regardless of how they got that money or power will never ever give it up without a fight.

Armed revolution probably is the only way ever to level the playing field , that's it pure and simple...!!!!

An armed revolution isn't all that likely unless our government became a dictatorship - people don't feel compelled to rise up against something if they don't feel that the cause is worthy. The government might be a bit ****, but they aren't as of yet arresting dissidents, bombing communities or taking away basic rights so I don't see it happening any time soon.

[Kizzy]

Wow stu and I thought russ blabbered on.... ;)
Seriously though, he would be less the ragged trousered philanthropist and more the ragged headed, but he could be a political tsunami if he put his mind to it.

[Nedusa]

An armed revolution isn't all that likely unless our government became a dictatorship - people don't feel compelled to rise up against something if they don't feel that the cause is worthy. The government might be a bit ****, but they aren't as of yet arresting dissidents, bombing communities or taking away basic rights so I don't see it happening any time soon.

You're right of course, things would have to get a lot worse for a lot more people before we ever got into that situation and unlike the US the UK is not awash with guns so an armed uprising is unlikely and a non armed uprising could be put down by the armed forces fairly quickly...!!

[Z]

You're right of course, things would have to get a lot worse for a lot more people before we ever got into that situation and unlike the US the UK is not awash with guns so an armed uprising is unlikely and a non armed uprising could be put down by the armed forces fairly quickly...!!

I'd imagine if any kind of weapons based conflict were to arise in the UK, it would sadly be of the bombing building variety... ideally it would be a peaceful revolution, an ideological one, dying for your country while fighting against your country seems like a tragic waste of life.

[Ninastar]

well said Zee.

[Me. I Am Salman]

Why can't people just speak in a way that everyone understands. Stop using fancy words you found from google

[Me. I Am Salman]

I understand what Zee is saying though so that doesn't apply to him

[Stu]

Paxman was being irritating, but Brand wasn't answering his question so the interview went round in circles. Paxman asked him why people should take him seriously when he's never voted and he's not suggested any ideas, he's just stated the obvious that the system is broken. Brand proceeded to talk around the issue and tried to detract from it by derailing the conversation, that's why I think people are just blindly praising him - most of the comments were "what a legend, love his way with words" or "fancy him so much" - i.e. superficial comments that don't pay the slightest bit of attention to the content of the interview. Despite the way I've posted in this thread, I think his points are fantastic and I look forward to hearing more political thoughts from Russell - I just wish he'd gone into this interview prepared. He's clever enough to talk his way through something he doesn't want to talk about (as all the best politicians do, incidentally) - I think he's an interesting man with some fantastic ideas, he just needs to research them and formulate them instead of batting off direct questions with archaic, wordy sentences.

It's not that I don't understand him, it's that I don't think he understands what he's talking about, with regards to discussing a "revolution" or how the system is broken and needs to be fixed. His points are valid but there's no basis to them, what will happen in this revolution? What needs to happen for it to come about? What should people be doing?
I think Brand was answering his questions perfectly fine so again I'm going to have to disagree. When Paxman asked for ideas Russell gave him some. When he asked him why we should take him seriously because he doesn't vote he explained how he advocates a passive system of non participation in a broken system. What on earth has somebody voting got to do with taking them seriously when it comes to discussing politics? I can see to a Joe Soap how it would seem counter intuitive and a hypocrisy but really that's just abject bullshit when confronted with the logical inference that the individual is not going to win picking between the apple and the orange when they do not like either.

What will happen in the revolution and what do we need to do to bring it about? It could be a quiet revolution. It's an extreme term and conjures images of red stars, your favorite Che mug and abtruse, clumsy quotation of The Matrix movies.

Brand has already hypothesized on the current and coming generations non participation in the current system. This, coupled with increased resistance and non compliance with levies considered unfair, would bring about a hopefully peaceful but nontheless disenfranchised populace who would become agitated into a state of continual respondent backlash which would gradually - with the help of people with the stature of Brand and the open platform of a wonder like the internet contributing to altering the general zeitgeist - push the powers that be out. The more important part of course is getting a system ready to replace it with. See post #1. It's obviously a natural inclination to be dubious about out ability to pull it off but sure what is the harm in trying.

Lets all be Jesus Christs of the impending world to come.

Wow stu and I thought russ blabbered on.... ;)

It's the only thing I'm in any way half decent at apart from procrastinating and singing Radiohead songs pissed.

[Stu]

Why can't people just speak in a way that everyone understands. Stop using fancy words you found from google
Why is the onus on those of us who paid more attention to self education in our youth to tone our diction down you dull bastard.

Tune your mind up. I'm not getting a downgrade.

[Me. I Am Salman]

Whatever you're just using a thesaurus, noone speaks like that and no one needs to speak like that

[Kizzy]

My guess is he's read 'The New Few' and it made him think.

[MTVN]

I can't see anyone using that complex language in this thread, if you can't understand them then maybe you are the one who could benefit from google

[Me. I Am Salman]

I can't see anyone using that complex language in this thread, if you can't understand them then maybe you are the one who could benefit from google

oh please don't tell me this is everyday language


His discourse is obviously very romantic but there is nothing to what he is saying that cannot conceivably be accomplished by the human race. Passing it up as the fairytale wonderland of a stand up comedian only fosters the sort of apathetic complacency that will impede our inevitable and long overdue spiritual and social revolution.

[Z]

Political non-participation doesn't achieve anything other than the ability to fester in knowing just how terrible this broken system is for another term, though. The logic that "you've never voted so you've signed away your right to have a say" is annoying, but it's still true. If you didn't vote, you let the country get into this mess by doing nothing. First past the post is a deeply flawed system but it's not going to get any better by doing nothing about it.

Firstly, the country needs a proportional representation system. We'd get more coalition governments but at least people would feel more inclined to vote, knowing that their votes actually count for something rather than being wasted. If you really want to vote for the Greens but you feel there's no point in doing so because they don't stand a chance - they'll never stand a chance. Voter participation in the UK is shockingly low. The Tories want to keep it that way, it's the only way they'll manage to hold on to power, if everyone feels too apathetic to get down to a polling station and vote. That's why Paxman was bringing it up so much - who is Russell Brand to criticise the system if he's never engaged with it? Not because Russell Brand is a comedian, not because Russell Brand is an actor, but because Russell Brand is a British citizen who has never voted for any government and really just wants to see it all collapse to make way for something new, without ever actually specifying what that something new should be.

Communism has never worked because the figurehead of any communist state thus far has been too greedy to relinquish their grip on leadership. What's that old adage about democracy being a terrible system but it's better than all the rest? We get what we vote for, and many people don't vote at all; so when they complain about the government they have, it's a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who do vote, those of us who tried to vote for what we wanted.

The government supports big businesses because big businesses support the country's interests. How does he propose to break that cycle without plunging the country into some kind of Great Depression? I don't know, there are so many tangents you could go off into when discussing political overhaul, I don't want to open any cans of worms, but I basically just think that he said a whole lot of nothing and people are heaping praise onto him because he's a celebrity who's taken an interest in politics and has an unusual way of speaking. That's a good thing, generally, that people are pleased that a celebrity is interested in politics, but he needs to be better at expressing himself more concisely.

(Which, if you couldn't already tell, isn't a skill I have :laugh:)

[MTVN]

oh please don't tell me this is everyday language

Not saying it's everyday spoken language, but don't think it's that out of place for written language - which has always been more elaborate - in a serious debate thread. Like I wouldn't talk in the same way that I write an essay, but that doesn't mean I'm just poring over a thesaurus

And if you did watch the video in the OP then Brand uses more complex language than anything in this thread

[Shaun]

oh salman finds intelligent conversation difficult, this is news to me

[Jack_]

oh please don't tell me this is everyday language

What words in that post do you not get? Out of all of Stu's posts in here I'd have said that was the easiest to understand :suspect:

[Me. I Am Salman]

seriously? like I'm not dumb or anything but it's annoying having to read through all of that
Perhaps choosing to study English Language & Linguistics next year isn't such a good idea

[Jack_]

I'm being serious LOL there's no words in that particular post that are difficult, surely you know what discourse is, you've done Sociology? :suspect:

[Me. I Am Salman]

Omg of course I know what discourse is, although discourse is not something they teach in sociology lmao

It's the second half of the sentence I don't get :shrug:

[Marc]

I would say this thread is going off topic but this is exactly how Russell Brand speaks to it's sort of relevant :laugh:

[Kizzy]

Right I'm confused I can see what sociology has to do with the thread, but not semantics.

[Stu]

oh please don't tell me this is everyday language
Maybe not to you but I take a daily interest in bettering my knowledge of the world. And though it sounds it I don't consider that to be some mad ass ego trip either. I think it's a free right that should be available and encouraged to everyone. When my kids are born once they've learned how to walk and talk I'm sending their asses to the library and surrounding them with books like my parents done for me. Beyond their love, their food and their shelter it's the greatest thing they've ever done for me and I am indebted to them for it.

Language is something to be proud of and something that should continue to be cultivated. It's not enough to understand the words on the type of television that you watch. The idea that I must be using a thesaurus because you of all people cannot understand me is hysterical.

I hope this was all easy enough to understand. You could always return to a favored pop thread to communicate in moving pictures like a child with an etch-a-sketch, my blood.

Political non-participation doesn't achieve anything other than the ability to fester in knowing just how terrible this broken system is for another term, though. The logic that "you've never voted so you've signed away your right to have a say" is annoying, but it's still true. If you didn't vote, you let the country get into this mess by doing nothing. First past the post is a deeply flawed system but it's not going to get any better by doing nothing about it.

Firstly, the country needs a proportional representation system. We'd get more coalition governments but at least people would feel more inclined to vote, knowing that their votes actually count for something rather than being wasted. If you really want to vote for the Greens but you feel there's no point in doing so because they don't stand a chance - they'll never stand a chance. Voter participation in the UK is shockingly low. The Tories want to keep it that way, it's the only way they'll manage to hold on to power, if everyone feels too apathetic to get down to a polling station and vote. That's why Paxman was bringing it up so much - who is Russell Brand to criticise the system if he's never engaged with it? Not because Russell Brand is a comedian, not because Russell Brand is an actor, but because Russell Brand is a British citizen who has never voted for any government and really just wants to see it all collapse to make way for something new, without ever actually specifying what that something new should be.

Communism has never worked because the figurehead of any communist state thus far has been too greedy to relinquish their grip on leadership. What's that old adage about democracy being a terrible system but it's better than all the rest? We get what we vote for, and many people don't vote at all; so when they complain about the government they have, it's a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who do vote, those of us who tried to vote for what we wanted.

The government supports big businesses because big businesses support the country's interests. How does he propose to break that cycle without plunging the country into some kind of Great Depression? I don't know, there are so many tangents you could go off into when discussing political overhaul, I don't want to open any cans of worms, but I basically just think that he said a whole lot of nothing and people are heaping praise onto him because he's a celebrity who's taken an interest in politics and has an unusual way of speaking. That's a good thing, generally, that people are pleased that a celebrity is interested in politics, but he needs to be better at expressing himself more concisely.

(Which, if you couldn't already tell, isn't a skill I have :laugh:)
I sense the can of worms, brother. I'm wary of discussing specific things at length too because it could go on and on and I respect the view that you're obviously not going to change for my white ass.

With regard to non participation it's an odd one because in a sense the only thing I can do is do the impossible and actually speak for Brand himself. He seems to view the entire system presently as corrupt. We can play the blame game with voters and non voters alike earning the nation a succession of bad governments but at present he views all the mainstream voting options in their entirety to be unsuitable for the type of world he wishes for and seems to think that non compliance on a mass scale is the favored way to shift the prevailing paradigm - obviously combined with having, importantly, a replacement system ready to go. It's an interesting theory.

In regards to communism Brand's admittedly vague description of a 'socialist egalitarian' state may not correspond greatly to some of the whims of it but it's odd that you mention the C word because I recall a previous Brand rant where he described communism as a system like a computer, and it's not the computers fault that some people abused it to do things like go and have a wank. Or something like that.

I don't think one needs to bankrupt the economy and encourage a depression just to remove some of the more nefarious elements of political bias towards big corporations. Refusing to bail out bigwigs who have already had a chance and refusing to sanction some of the big corp practices that seek to abuse workforces and natural resources isn't going to cripple the economy. This isn't as idealistic as some "kill all business and let's go back to nature" type ideal. It's just a matter of being kinder to one another and balancing the wealth more. Helping those who need it more than those who really don't. Now that is horrifically vague, I know. But at the end of the day I think Brand put his views across just fine. It was a ten minute newsnight interview and I found him concise and engaging. Maybe if he were to base an entire show around his revolution we could gain a better picture.

Also I'm a paddy and I can say that my knowledge of your political system is limited to Have I Got News For You, the odd TiBB news thread and morning mong outs set to the tune of Sky News. If we're going to get into specifics about British politics I'm going to go running like a little bitch.

[Z]

I sense the can of worms, brother. I'm wary of discussing specific things at length too because it could go on and on and I respect the view that you're obviously not going to change for my white ass.

With regard to non participation it's an odd one because in a sense the only thing I can do is do the impossible and actually speak for Brand himself. He seems to view the entire system presently as corrupt. We can play the blame game with voters and non voters alike earning the nation a succession of bad governments but at present he views all the mainstream voting options in their entirety to be unsuitable for the type of world he wishes for and seems to think that non compliance on a mass scale is the favored way to shift the prevailing paradigm - obviously combined with having, importantly, a replacement system ready to go. It's an interesting theory.

In regards to communism Brand's admittedly vague description of a 'socialist egalitarian' state may not correspond greatly to some of the whims of it but it's odd that you mention the C word because I recall a previous Brand rant where he described communism as a system like a computer, and it's not the computers fault that some people abused it to do things like go and have a wank. Or something like that.

I don't think one needs to bankrupt the economy and encourage a depression just to remove some of the more nefarious elements of political bias towards big corporations. Refusing to bail out bigwigs who have already had a chance and refusing to sanction some of the big corp practices that seek to abuse workforces and natural resources isn't going to cripple the economy. This isn't as idealistic as some "kill all business and let's go back to nature" type ideal. It's just a matter of being kinder to one another and balancing the wealth more. Helping those who need it more than those who really don't. Now that is horrifically vague, I know. But at the end of the day I think Brand put his views across just fine. It was a ten minute newsnight interview and I found him concise and engaging. Maybe if he were to base an entire show around his revolution we could gain a better picture.

Also I'm a paddy and I can say that my knowledge of your political system is limited to Have I Got News For You, the odd TiBB news thread and morning mong outs set to the tune of Sky News. If we're going to get into specifics about British politics I'm going to go running like a little bitch.

Communism just popped into my head because he mentions that the world at large is a corrupt place and the slate needs to be wiped clean, essentially, which is what communism hinges on; the need for revolutions around the world to occur in order to establish a blank slate. In reality this never happened, because the figureheads for such movements needed to be selfless leaders who would step aside once certain goals had been achieved; and because one of those goals was getting all countries around the world to turn to communism, it could never happen anyway. Russell Brand wants the same thing to happen, the world to start anew, so I suppose that's why I brought communism into it.

I think it would be interesting to watch Russell Brand speak about his views in great depth, I think it would be deeply insightful and I think it would put a relatable face onto many of the issues that people in the UK feel but don't express publicly en masse. It's impossible to co-ordinate the entire country because there are huge conflicts of interest. I think I'll back out of this thread before I start writing essays about what could and should be done to make the country better :laugh:

[Kizzy]

All you have to know about for the current party in power the venture capitalist is king.
And as we hurtle towards oligarchy private industry is preferable, not alongside... but instead of public.

[user104658]

All you have to know about for the current party in power the venture capitalist is king.
And as we hurtle towards oligarchy private industry is preferable, not alongside... but instead of public.

What we're hurtling towards is, in my opinion, something much more terrifying than an oligarchy. It's more like a disembodied plutocracy in which "the individual" is a meaningless term. What I mean by that is, there will be no individual, thinking people at the top of the oncoming plutocracy. It will be a plutocracy of corporate entities which are becoming so massive that they are starting to operate independently of individual rational thought. Different limbs of the same multinationals operate without there being any one individual fully aware of what the entity as a whole "is" or "does". These powerful entities will end up in control of all of our lives without anyone in control, even within the corporations themselves. They are Legion. A hive mind of millions of employees being loosely given direction by market forces and economic tides, again, controlled by no one, and technically completely imaginary.

I like Russell Brand but I wish he'd have just been honest here. He can see how things should be, how things always should have been, but aren't. The reason he can't come up with an actual coherent "plan" or even an idea of how to achieve this ideal is because there isn't one. We're a hundred years too late.

The world is an overpopulated sh*tstorm of economic chaos; it's a train crash in slow motion. All we can really do is sit back and watch, hope that life remains passable throughout our lives and those of our immediate offspring, and muse idly over how it COULD have been so much better, but now, can't. I reckon Brand knows this. Would have made for depressing telly, though.

[the truth]

The best comedians are the ones who can espouse ideas and be funny about it. Bill Hicks is my hero and he was an [admittedly blunt] political philosopher simply masquerading as a comedian.

In any case your assessment that someone should never be taken seriously - no matter the content or context - because or their day job is complete claptrap and far too shallow and easy a conclusion to draw.

Politicians should conversely be taken seriously because they showed up to the rat race with a tie?

You sound like a Christian trying to claim Brand as one of your own. Is this the case?

From reading up on him Brand admires the mythic archetype of Jesus Christ but his spirituality is a clear unspecified, less-on-the-dogma blend of Vedantic traditions. He practices kundalini and has a well documented fondness for Hare Krishna.

A practicing, Bible reading Christian he is not. A lot of his views may have resulted from being raised in that environment but a lot of peoples views tend to correspond to those of Christs.

He believes in Christianity, he believes in its principles , morals and he also believes in God. Im not claiming him for anyone, this is what he believes.
His philosophy is along these lines though he doesn't directly bring Christ into it. Clearly Christ is one of his main inspirations. Its good to have a strong and good set of morals and they apply it to modern every day situations and social problems, as brand is doing.

He also brings his own inimitable take on todays political wranglings. and rightly highlights again and again the absurd immoral status quo of the entire world economy....where the 99.9% are enslaved still by the 0.1%

Its good to keep underlining this point, because in the past that 0.1% have always survived and thrived by dividing and conquering the rest of the 99.9%
we the people must unite behind one voice that firstly says its unacceptable. then join forces with the millions of a similar mind and work together to change society

this can be through marches, campaigns, blogging, tweeting, changing thoughts and perceptions, outing the phenomenal corporate corruption and the political corruption that enables this to happen. exposing and pressurising these corporate puppets in parliament to quit or get voted out

we need to fight to re-nationalise the energy (gas water electricity) this is done by fighting the argument and when we win that argument then we will see politicians thrown out sooner.

take a look at Michael moore, take a look at john pilger, Galloway, tony benn, barack Obama....these people have changed the western world.
make your voice heard

[the truth]

Political non-participation doesn't achieve anything other than the ability to fester in knowing just how terrible this broken system is for another term, though. The logic that "you've never voted so you've signed away your right to have a say" is annoying, but it's still true. If you didn't vote, you let the country get into this mess by doing nothing. First past the post is a deeply flawed system but it's not going to get any better by doing nothing about it.

Firstly, the country needs a proportional representation system. We'd get more coalition governments but at least people would feel more inclined to vote, knowing that their votes actually count for something rather than being wasted. If you really want to vote for the Greens but you feel there's no point in doing so because they don't stand a chance - they'll never stand a chance. Voter participation in the UK is shockingly low. The Tories want to keep it that way, it's the only way they'll manage to hold on to power, if everyone feels too apathetic to get down to a polling station and vote. That's why Paxman was bringing it up so much - who is Russell Brand to criticise the system if he's never engaged with it? Not because Russell Brand is a comedian, not because Russell Brand is an actor, but because Russell Brand is a British citizen who has never voted for any government and really just wants to see it all collapse to make way for something new, without ever actually specifying what that something new should be.

Communism has never worked because the figurehead of any communist state thus far has been too greedy to relinquish their grip on leadership. What's that old adage about democracy being a terrible system but it's better than all the rest? We get what we vote for, and many people don't vote at all; so when they complain about the government they have, it's a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who do vote, those of us who tried to vote for what we wanted.

The government supports big businesses because big businesses support the country's interests. How does he propose to break that cycle without plunging the country into some kind of Great Depression? I don't know, there are so many tangents you could go off into when discussing political overhaul, I don't want to open any cans of worms, but I basically just think that he said a whole lot of nothing and people are heaping praise onto him because he's a celebrity who's taken an interest in politics and has an unusual way of speaking. That's a good thing, generally, that people are pleased that a celebrity is interested in politics, but he needs to be better at expressing himself more concisely.

(Which, if you couldn't already tell, isn't a skill I have :laugh:)

if he wrote a manifesto he would be mocked and ridiculued and hung out to dry

Obviously it is easier to stand outside politics and talk.
But if it is informed intelligent cutting edge based opinion, it is relevant
I agree at this moment he cant be taken particularly seriously as its mostly theory. But if millions listen to his words, that alone can enter the british consciousness. itll be fascinating to see if he gets more serious and active

[Kizzy]

I watched a programme about Japan, they seemingly have a plutocrasy.... They feel part of the organization or sector they work within. We don't have that mindset any longer 'there is no such thing as society' remember?
Even though democracy is deeply entrenched in our culture it would take a something pretty massive to change that..... In fact I feel it would have to be enforced, with the tories cosying up to China that's not so crazy to imagine suddenly.
There is a way to beat the system by not using the services provided by these giants?
That would be thinking with our heads and our feet.

[arista]

FoxNewsHD Red Eye adult comedy show
is debating the Paxman - Brand interview
They say Brands net worth is $15million.

Red Eye
UK 8AM online only (via directv.to)

USA 3AM

[arista]

Why is the onus on those of us who paid more attention to self education in our youth to tone our diction down you dull bastard.

Tune your mind up. I'm not getting a downgrade.



Utter Bliss Stu

[Z]

if he wrote a manifesto he would be mocked and ridiculued and hung out to dry

Obviously it is easier to stand outside politics and talk.
But if it is informed intelligent cutting edge based opinion, it is relevant
I agree at this moment he cant be taken particularly seriously as its mostly theory. But if millions listen to his words, that alone can enter the british consciousness. itll be fascinating to see if he gets more serious and active

But I didn't say I think he should have had a manifesto. Just some ideas beyond stating "the system is broken and needs fixing" - many people agree with him, but he shouldn't be applauded for stating the obvious in my opinion. If he'd gone into that interview and said "the first step is..." then that would have sufficed. Just some evidence that he knows what he's talking about, politically, rather than using archaic language to essentially state that the country, and world at large, needs an overhaul.

[GiRTh]

Why can't people just speak in a way that everyone understands. Stop using fancy words you found from googleLOL Post of the year. Its a sorry state of affairs that Stu is being asked to dumb down his comments. Nice to see Stu posting. Welcome back. :thumbs:

Interesting interview but I 'm unfortunately on the side that this is the romantic ramblings of a comedian/actor/Tv personality. Paxman is astonishing ignorant in this interview and doesn't do himself justice what so ever. It seems Russell|Brands reference to Paxmans 'Who do you think you are' episode shows he seems to have done much more research that the 'serious' journalist

Russell Brand has always been reasonably political but I'm of the opinion that if he wants to get into politics then he has the means and the following to actually be successful. Not voting and refusing to vote due to the broken system doesn't impress me at all. Russell Brand is in a much better position to affect change than anyone of us but seemingly refuses to cuz it would be too difficult. Ok then stick to stand up then Russell and let the politicians deal with politics.

[Jesus.]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/s6EaoPMANQM/0.jpg

I no understand wha the stu man he say.

[GiRTh]

Further to my above point, I should point out that I work for a charity so am somewhat biased when it comes to celebs and their issues du jour. As soon as we get a celeb involved in an issue our funding goes thru the roof but are people throwing money at us cuz they believe in the issue or cuz a celeb is involved? I dont know and thus I'm not a big fan of celebs superficially getting involved in politics.

[arista]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/s6EaoPMANQM/0.jpg

I no understand wha the stu man he say.


He is younger
thats all.

[arista]

Russel Brand is not Good
for the young
as he says Do Not Vote.


Talked about today on Daily Politics

[Kizzy]

Was discussing this with my daughter last night she was really angry about that too... How can we change the status quo in a democracy if we don't vote?...

[arista]

Large amounts of young voters are not voting
thats what they said on the Daily Politics
its a mess

[Kizzy]

Do you blame them after what the lib dems did?.... hardly inspires confidence does it?

[arista]

Do you blame them after what the lib dems did?.... hardly inspires confidence does it?


Yes but understanding
what Clegg preached was only if he became PM alone.
And because they are the smaller one
in this this joint power - its all Logical


Now Clegg is saying things less big
as he knows he can only be a 2nd joint power
at any Election.

[Kizzy]

Unless Labour get a majority obv?

[arista]

Unless Labour get a majority obv?


Yes
or Conservative.



much to early to predict

[Kizzy]

Fancy a wager?... lol!

[arista]

Fancy a wager?... lol!


Not at this stage

[Kizzy]

You are most wise...

[MTVN]

I will put a fiver on a Ukip majority

[smudgie]

I watched a programme about Japan, they seemingly have a plutocrasy.... They feel part of the organization or sector they work within. We don't have that mindset any longer 'there is no such thing as society' remember?
Even though democracy is deeply entrenched in our culture it would take a something pretty massive to change that..... In fact I feel it would have to be enforced, with the tories cosying up to China that's not so crazy to imagine suddenly.
There is a way to beat the system by not using the services provided by these giants?
That would be thinking with our heads and our feet.

I was thinking this very thought when my new gas and electric statements arrived.

If a few people could sort it out online it could grow.
Make a few dates..in the summer obviously, when we all decide to turn everything off for 24 hours.
A day without a shower, TV etc and eating food that needs no cooking should not be to hard to do.
People power .:hugesmile:

[Kizzy]

I'm in! :D

[arista]

"everything off for 24 hours. "


No
Markets Trade
Important Data
Never Missed

[the truth]

Maybe brand could look to set up some kind of political party, with the net , twitter and celebrity obsession who knows where it could lead. his moral arguments are pretty sound and I cant criticize him for any of them. if only politicians did actually have the guts to discuss moral issues

[arista]

Maybe brand could look to set up some kind of political party, with the net , twitter and celebrity obsession who knows where it could lead. his moral arguments are pretty sound and I cant criticize him for any of them. if only politicians did actually have the guts to discuss moral issues


No he is too Busy Making Money

[the truth]

No he is too Busy Making Money

good for him

[Kizzy]

I think he would be better served inspiring youth to vote than not... there really is no alternative than to educate yourself and use your vote wisely.

[the truth]

I think he would be better served inspiring youth to vote than not... there really is no alternative than to educate yourself and use your vote wisely.

Totally disagree...have you ever written to mps councillors, papers, its possible to point out failures, ideas, suggestions, blogs letters, charity work, your own work , the way you bring up your children and help your family and friends....these things are more powerful that much of the mp's failures.....its important have an interest in individual issues. sharing knowledge and ideas are all essential too

[Kizzy]

During elections votes count... You can disagree all you want but that is fact.

[the truth]

During elections votes count... You can disagree all you want but that is fact.

other things count too, that is also fact

[Kizzy]

Not during elections they don't.... In a democracy to change things you need to vote.
At other times you can campaign, protest and lend your support in as many ways as you wish, but if you don't put your cross in a box on poll day it counts for nothing.

[the truth]

Not during elections they don't.... In a democracy to change things you need to vote.
At other times you can campaign, protest and lend your support in as many ways as you wish, but if you don't put your cross in a box on poll day it counts for nothing.

I 100% disagree. One can start businesses , creating jobs, creating wealth and incomes for families, spending 10000s of pounds on fellow local businesses....encouraging and helping other start up businesses too
this has enormous impact on your community , far more than ticking a box for an mp who offers the same broken promises as the previous failure.
however in addition to creating businesses and jobs, one can write to ones mp about specific issues, which I and many others do all the time and in fairness I always get responses and in some cases some significant action

raising money for specific charities is highly effective, Ive been involved with that , writing well thought out letters, concisely and specifically to address key problems has huge impact. so too does blogging, writing aricles and so on
even the way one lives ones life. missionary work is hugely effective as the local Christian churches who do staggeringly amazing work in impoverished nations, recently proved with more trips to Kenya. this should be highlighted more in mainstream news. the vast majority of Church goers are terrific people who worldwide do staggering amounts of work and raise billions too


on a personal note, Ive also dealt with the nhs trust many many times and in effect change the way they operated with home care in my area.

there is more to life than ticking a box. Id say those who vote in the same clowns from the same complacent self serving party are the complacent ones, not the people who do all sorts of other community work, campaigning or enterpreneurs and charity workers etc etc

[smeagol]

good interview its interesting how brand has used the english language and uses every big word he can think of. a bit too much though , sometimes plain speaking with afew big words gets the point over much better.
rare to see him rattled but i like the way he uses humour to win people over the desperate need to be loved.

he has great points but politics is rocky ground for celebs .agree with him 100% though

[the truth]

good interview its interesting how brand has used the english language and uses every big word he can think of. a bit too much though , sometimes plain speaking with afew big words gets the point over much better.
rare to see him rattled but i like the way he uses humour to win people over the desperate need to be loved.

he has great points but politics is rocky ground for celebs .agree with him 100% though

if people don't understand big words they simple have to look them up. even there hes doing a service in educating people and allowing us to learn some new words. better than the downward spiral of twitter and text speak etc

take portillo hes a wordy fellow, in reply to Andrew neals rather curt question as to what did portill think of an mp referring to him as a badstard, portillo replied "I don't believe I merited that appellation"

[smeagol]

if people don't understand big words they simple have to look them up. even there hes doing a service in educating people and allowing us to learn some new words. better than the downward spiral of twitter and text speak etc

take portillo hes a wordy fellow, in reply to Andrew neals rather curt question as to what did portill think of an mp referring to him as a badstard, portillo replied "I don't believe I merited that appellation"

lol thats a good response from him.
i find speaking to people in their own language though works best, brand uses to many in order to dazzle and bewilder people which is ideal if he wants to go into politics lol
funny i was just thinking about text speak and lack of real writing. my spelling and writing is shocking to what it used to be. the more we text etc the worst we will get.

[Kizzy]

I 100% disagree. One can start businesses , creating jobs, creating wealth and incomes for families, spending 10000s of pounds on fellow local businesses....encouraging and helping other start up businesses too
this has enormous impact on your community , far more than ticking a box for an mp who offers the same broken promises as the previous failure.
however in addition to creating businesses and jobs, one can write to ones mp about specific issues, which I and many others do all the time and in fairness I always get responses and in some cases some significant action

raising money for specific charities is highly effective, Ive been involved with that , writing well thought out letters, concisely and specifically to address key problems has huge impact. so too does blogging, writing aricles and so on
even the way one lives ones life. missionary work is hugely effective as the local Christian churches who do staggeringly amazing work in impoverished nations, recently proved with more trips to Kenya. this should be highlighted more in mainstream news. the vast majority of Church goers are terrific people who worldwide do staggering amounts of work and raise billions too


on a personal note, Ive also dealt with the nhs trust many many times and in effect change the way they operated with home care in my area.

there is more to life than ticking a box. Id say those who vote in the same clowns from the same complacent self serving party are the complacent ones, not the people who do all sorts of other community work, campaigning or enterpreneurs and charity workers etc etc

That is all very noble, but again if you don't vote those whose ideology most resembles your own into power everything you stand for, work for, build up means nothing.

[the truth]

That is all very noble, but again if you don't vote those whose ideology most resembles your own into power everything you stand for, work for, build up means nothing.

Absolute rubbish....how can creating jobs for 100s of people, creating wealth for 100s of families, raising money for sick poor and disabled people, helping people around you, writing to councillors, politicians, business communities, mean nothing>? what the heck are you on about?

[Kizzy]

Absolute rubbish....how can creating jobs for 100s of people, creating wealth for 100s of families, raising money for sick poor and disabled people, helping people around you, writing to councillors, politicians, business communities, mean nothing>? what the heck are you on about?

No need to get rude..
To have an impact on the country from a political not a social perspective...
Government make the decisions that impact on the whole of the UK. My point is if you want to stall the flow of bad policies you have to vote out those who you oppose, and vote in who you support.
Yes you can totally do all that social responsibility stuff, but it won't change the political landscape will it?

[the truth]

No need to get rude..
To have an impact on the country from a political not a social perspective...
Government make the decisions that impact on the whole of the UK. My point is if you want to stall the flow of bad policies you have to vote out those who you oppose, and vote in who you support.
Yes you can totally do all that social responsibility stuff, but it won't change the political landscape will it?

whos rude? If I think something is rubbish Ill say so, if I think something is captivatingly brilliant I will say so

You are now making a case you haven't previously stated.
What does your last sentence mean? social responsibility stuff? what on earth are you talking about?


creating jobs, wealth , businesses, investing and spending significant money in a local community isn't social responsibility stuff?

Joining campaign groups, Writing letters to nhs trusts, civil servants,charity work, voluntary work, chief executives, mps, councillors, am's, newspapers, yes they can change the world....

If a bad practice occurs in a local hospital which waste 100s of man hours and if something actually endangers lives or costs the nhs a fortune , all of that does change society and lives and economies. what you achieve also inspires those around you too. that's just one aspect.

if you are also now talking about a very narrow agenda to change the political landscape....then yes what Im talking about does affect the landscape more than 1 vote. I know the man who basically invented the lower stepped curb for disabled people and wheelchair users in this county. he banged so many heads together , he formed his own charity organisation which was a club for disabled people where everyone met. he inspired everyone, built a home for his disabled daughter and the organization has now been running 30 years......hes created a wonderful environment, hes helped 1000s of disabled people, hes improved peoples quality of lives, hes also jelp create well probably 1000s of jobs over 30 years.....in turn he inspired other people and other organizations to make things happen in the community....hes a wonderful man

pls list me the great list of achievemnts of any mps in recent years that even compare to this? though I would say that some backbenchers do achieve some things that are not highlighted enough on mainstream tv which concentrates on the sensationalized stuff......then again the media is spectacularly complacent in the Uk. we think were great yet we all follow the exact same stories in the exact same way

I would even say a man like billy Connolly has changed this society for the better more than most recent british politicians......these people are morons. the hs2 project is yet another moronic project to enslave us to the rich, yet the severn barrage scheme which is clearly an obvious must do scheme that will supply as vastly more energy FOREVER is not carried out , even though it costs about 20% of the hs2 project....why? because the barrage benefits the poor masses and hs2 benefits the rich tiny minority

I do vote but unless they find a candidate or party they truly believe in, I wouldn't encourage anyone else to vote just for the sake of voting.....Nor would I necessarily encourage them to go into politics.....I believe the system is now so rigged and the class system so bigoted and the education system so fixed against the poorer areas....that this is a rigged game you cannot win.. would you give up the next 20 years of your life, your health your happiness your family time everything so you could try and convince the most selfish people on the planet the most basic tenements of human decency, do these sick selfish people ever listen? They've been raised by birth to maintain the hierarchy of power ....Can you find another Lloyd George ? .they should build a 100 foot statue of that man and aneurin bevan , alas most people in schools don't even know who they are? what a sad society

the change at this moment in time in the UK must come from the outside.....

tragically a Lloyd George may never happen again in dumbed down Britain, not even an Obama candidate could never happen in the UK....not for many decades

[Kizzy]

If you don't understand my posts don't insult me, ask me and I will happily explain.

[Jack_]

Since Kizzy brought this up in another thread and it's a follow up from this, plus I also read it this morning in a lesson :suspect: I thought I'd post this here

Russell wrote a column for the Guardian on Tuesday about the response he'd received to this interview, and it's fantastic. I'd recommend anyone that watched the interview follows it up by reading this. If you prefer to read it on the site itself, click here (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-brand-democratic-system-newsnight), but I've copy/pasted it for anyone that doesn't mind

Russell Brand: we deserve more from our democratic system
Following his appearance on Newsnight, the comedian explains why he believes there are alternatives to our current regime

I've had an incredible week since I spoke from the heart, some would say via my arse, on Paxman. I've had slaps on the back, fist bumps, cheers and hugs while out and about, cock-eyed offers of political power from well intentioned chancers and some good ol' fashioned character assassinations in the papers.

The people who liked the interview said it was because I'd articulated what they were thinking. I recognise this. God knows I'd love to think the attention was about me but I said nothing new or original, it was the expression of the knowledge that democracy is irrelevant that resonated. As long as the priorities of those in government remain the interests of big business, rather than the people they were elected to serve, the impact of voting is negligible and it is our responsibility to be more active if we want real change.

Turns out that among the disenchanted is Paxman himself who spends most of his time at the meek heart of the political establishment and can't summons up the self-delusion to drag his nib across the ballot box. He, more than any of us is aware that politicians are frauds. I've not spent too much time around them, only on the telly, it's not pleasant; once you've been on Question Time and seen Boris simpering under a make-up brush it's difficult to be enthusiastic about politics.

The only reason to vote is if the vote represents power or change. I don't think it does. I fervently believe that we deserve more from our democratic system than the few derisory tit-bits tossed from the carousel of the mighty, when they hop a few inches left or right. The lazily duplicitous servants of The City expect us to gratefully participate in what amounts to little more than a political hokey cokey where every four years we get to choose what colour tie the liar who leads us wears.

I remember the election and Cameron didn't even get properly voted in, he became prime minister by default when he teamed up with Clegg. Clegg who immediately reneged (Renegy-Cleggy?) on his flagship pledge to end tuition fees at the first whiff of power.

When students, perhaps students who had voted for him, rioted they were condemned. People riot when dialogue fails, when they feel unrepresented and bored by the illusion, bilious with the piped in toxic belch wafted into their homes by the media.

The reason these coalitions are so easily achieved is that the distinctions between the parties are insignificant. My friend went to a posh "do" in the country where David Cameron, a man whose face resembles a little painted egg, was in attendance. Also present were members of the opposition and former prime minister Tony Blair. Whatever party they claim to represent in the day, at night they show their true colours and all go to the same party.

Obviously there has been some criticism of my outburst, I've not been universally applauded as a cross between Jack Sparrow and Spartacus (which is what I'm going for) but they've been oddly personal and I think irrelevant to the argument. I try not to read about myself as the mean stuff is hurtful and the good stuff hard to believe, but my mates always give me the gist of what's going on, the bastards. Some people say I'm a hypocrite because I've got money now. When I was poor and I complained about inequality people said I was bitter, now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want inequality on the agenda because it is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

It's easy to attack me, I'm a right twerp, I'm a junkie and a cheeky monkey, I accept it, but that doesn't detract from the incontrovertible fact that we are living in a time of huge economic disparity and confronting ecological disaster. This disparity has always been, in cultures since expired, a warning sign of end of days. In Rome, Egypt and Easter Island the incubated ruling elites, who had forgotten that we are one interconnected people, destroyed their societies by not sharing. That is what's happening now, regardless of what you think of my hair or me using long words, the facts are the facts and the problem is the problem. Don't be distracted. I think these columnist fellas who give me aggro for not devising a solution or for using long words are just being territorial. When they say "long words" they mean "their words" like I'm a monkey who got in their Mum's dressing up box or a hooligan in policeman's helmet.

As I said to Paxman at the time "I can't conjure up a global Utopia right now in this hotel room". Obviously that's not my job and it doesn't need to be, we have brilliant thinkers and organisations and no one needs to cook up an egalitarian Shangri-La on their todd; we can all do it together.

I like Jeremy Paxman, incidentally. I think he's a decent bloke but like a lot of people who work deep within the system it's hard for him to countenance ideas from outside the narrowly prescribed trench of contemporary democracy. Most of the people who criticized me have a vested interest in the maintenance of the system. They say the system works. What they mean is "the system works for me".

The less privileged among us are already living in the apocalypse, the thousands of street sleepers in our country, the refugees and the exploited underclass across our planet daily confront what we would regard as the end of the world. No money, no home, no friends, no support, no hand of friendship reaching out, just acculturated and inculcated condemnation.

When I first got a few quid it was like an anaesthetic that made me forget what was important but now I've woken up. I can't deny that I've done a lot of daft things while I was under the capitalist fugue, some silly telly, soppy scandals, movies better left unmade. I've also become rich. I don't hate rich people; Che Guevara was a rich person. I don't hate anyone, I judge no one, that's not my job, I'm a comedian and my job is to say whatever I like to whoever I want if I'm prepared to take the consequences. Well I am.

My favourite experiences since Paxman-nacht are both examples of the dialogue it sparked. Firstly my friend's 15-year-old son wrote an essay for his politics class after he read my New Statesman piece. He didn't agree with everything I said, he prefers the idea of spoiling ballots to not voting "to show we do care" maybe he's right, I don't know. The reason not voting could be effective is that if we starve them of our consent we could force them to acknowledge that they operate on behalf of The City and Wall Street; that the financing of political parties and lobbying is where the true influence lies; not in the ballot box. However, this 15-year-old is quite smart and it's quite possible that my opinions are a result of decades of drug abuse.

I'm on tour so I've been with thousands of people every night (not like in the old days, I'm a changed man) this is why I'm aware of how much impact the Newsnight interview had. Not everyone I chat to agrees with me but their beliefs are a lot closer to mine than the broadsheets, and it's their job to be serious. One thing I've learned and was surprised by is that I may suffer from the ol' sexism. I can only assume I have an unaddressed cultural hangover, like my adorable Nan who had a heart that shone like a pearl but was, let's face it, a bit racist. I don't want to be a sexist so I'm trying my best to check meself before I wreck meself. The problem may resolve itself as I'm in a loving relationship with a benevolent dictator and have entirely relinquished personal autonomy.

Whilst travelling between gigs I had my second notable encounter. One night late at the Watford Gap I got chatting to a couple of squaddies, one Para, one Marine, we talked a bit about family and politics, I invited them to a show. Then we were joined by three Muslim women, all hijabbed up. For a few perfect minutes in the strip lit inertia of this place, that was nowhere in particular but uniquely Britain, I felt how plausible and beautiful The Revolution could be. We just chatted.

Between three sets of different people; first generation Muslims, servicemen and the privileged elite that they serve (that would be me) effortless cooperation occurred. Here we were free from the divisive rule that tears us apart. That sends brave men and women to foreign lands to fight their capitalist wars, that intimidates and unsettles people whose faith and culture superficially distinguishes them, that tells the comfortable "hush now" you have your trinkets. It seemed ridiculous that refracted through the power prism that blinds us; the soldiers could be invading the homeland of these women's forefathers in order to augment my luxurious stupour. Here in the gap we were together. Our differences irrelevant. With no one to impose separation we are united.

I realised then that our treasured concepts of tribe and nation are not valued by those who govern except when it is to divide us from each other. They don't believe in Britain or America they believe in the dollar and the pound. These are deep and entrenched systemic wrongs that are unaddressed by party politics.

The symptoms of these wrongs are obvious, global and painful. Drone strikes on the innocent, a festering investment for future conflict.

How many combatants are created each time an innocent person in a faraway land is silently ironed out from an Arizona call centre? The reality is we have more in common with the people we're bombing than the people we're bombing them for.

NSA spying, how far-reaching is the issue of surveillance? Do you think we don't have our own cute, quaint British version? Does it matter if the dominant paradigm of Western Capitalism is indifferent to our Bud Flanagan belief in nation? Can we really believe these problems can be altered within the system that created them? That depends on them? The system that we are invited to vote for? Of course not, that's why I won't vote. That's why I support the growing revolution.

We can all contribute ideas as to how to change our world; schoolboys, squaddies, hippies, Muslims, Jews and if what I'm describing is naive then you can keep your education and your indoctrination because loving our planet and each other is a duty, a beautiful obligation. While chatting to people this week I heard some interesting ideas, here are a couple.

We could use the money accumulated by those who have too much, not normal people with a couple of cars, giant corporations, to fund a fairer society.

The US government gave a trillion dollars to bail out the big five banks over the past year. Banks that have grown by 30% since the crisis and are experiencing record profits and giving their execs record bonuses. How about, hang on to your hats because here comes a naïve suggestion, don't give them that money, use it to create one million jobs at fifty grand a year for people who teach, nurse or protect.

These bailouts for elites over services for the many are institutionalised within the system, no party proposes changing it. American people that voted, voted for it. I'm not voting for that.

That's one suggestion for the Americans; we started their country so we owe them a favour now things are getting heavy.

Here's one for blighty; Philip Green, the bloke who owns Top Shop didn't pay any income tax on a £1.2bn dividend in 2005. None. Unless he paid himself a salary that year, in addition to the £1.2bn dividend, the largest in corporate history, then the people who clean Top Shop paid more income tax than he did. That's for two reasons – firstly because he said that all of his £1.2bn earnings belong to his missus, who was registered in Monaco and secondly because he's an arsehole. The money he's nicked through legal loopholes would pay the annual salary for 20,000 NHS nurses. It's not illegal; it's systemic, British people who voted, voted for it. I'm not voting for that.

Why don't you try not paying taxes and see how quickly a lump of bird gets thrown in your face. It's socialism for corporate elites and feudalism for the rest of us. Those suggestions did not come from me; no the mind that gave the planet Booky Wook and Ponderland didn't just add an economically viable wealth distribution system to the laudable list of accolades, to place next to my Shagger Of The Year awards.

The first came from Dave DeGraw, the second Johann Hari got from UK Uncut. Luckily with organisations like them, Occupy, Anonymous and The People's Assembly I don't need to come with ideas, we can all participate. I'm happy to be a part of the conversation, if more young people are talking about fracking instead of twerking we're heading in the right direction. The people that govern us don't want an active population who are politically engaged, they want passive consumers distracted by the spectacle of which I accept I am a part.

If we all collude and collaborate together we can design a new system that makes the current one obsolete. The reality is there are alternatives. That is the terrifying truth that the media, government and big business work so hard to conceal. Even the outlet that printed this will tomorrow print a couple of columns saying what a naïve wanker I am, or try to find ways that I've ****ed up. Well I am naïve and I have ****ed up but I tell you something else. I believe in change. I don't mind getting my hands dirty because my hands are dirty already. I don't mind giving my life to this because I'm only alive because of the compassion and love of others. Men and women strong enough to defy this system and live according to higher laws. This is a journey we can all go on together, all of us. We can include everyone and fear no one. A system that serves the planet and the people. I'd vote for that.

Source (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-brand-democratic-system-newsnight)

[Vicky.]

Here's one for blighty; Philip Green, the bloke who owns Top Shop didn't pay any income tax on a £1.2bn dividend in 2005. None. Unless he paid himself a salary that year, in addition to the £1.2bn dividend, the largest in corporate history, then the people who clean Top Shop paid more income tax than he did. That's for two reasons – firstly because he said that all of his £1.2bn earnings belong to his missus, who was registered in Monaco and secondly because he's an arsehole. The money he's nicked through legal loopholes would pay the annual salary for 20,000 NHS nurses. It's not illegal; it's systemic, British people who voted, voted for it. I'm not voting for that.


Jesus christ..I didnt realise it was that bad.

My father in law is currently being chased for around 5k tax debt..he (or his accountant) made a mistake when doing the tax return forms. His business went bankrupt not long after the smoking ban came in(because of it I think...) and he doesn't have the money to pay as it as a long time ago..and they are completely hounding him. Shame he didnt owe millions, could have been left alone then :bored:

[Kizzy]

Yes but as we keep being told tax evasion is a crime... tax avoidance isn't.
That's right isn't it?

[Vicky.]

Making a (small) mistake is evidentally more of a crime than purposely avoiding (very large amounts of) tax too. How lovely.

[the truth]

£1.2 billion? no tax? WTF? why has no politician brought this to jo publics attention before? for this alone I applaud russel brand

[Kizzy]

Fair? where does fair ever come into anything these days?
Centrica shareholders each got a slice of a £800 million pie, and yet they bleat it's the renewables levy that keeps bills sky high... :crazy:

Btw, thankyou jack for posting the article.

[the truth]

starbucks and many more billion dollar industries barely paid taxes for years, when there was a public outcry they VOLUNTEERED to make a donation VOLUNTEERED? THESE CORRUPT SCUMBAG POLITICANS ALLOW A SYSTEM TO BENT WITH SO MANY LOOPHOLES ACROSS EUROPE AND BEYOND THAT ENSURE THESE BIG CORPORATIONS ARE ABLE TO PAY ALMOST ZERO TAX? literally the cleaners who clean phil greens office on their £6 an hour, are probably paying a bigger proportion in tax than the billionaire?

[Nedusa]

starbucks and many more billion dollar industries barely paid taxes for years, when there was a public outcry they VOLUNTEERED to make a donation VOLUNTEERED? THESE CORRUPT SCUMBAG POLITICANS ALLOW A SYSTEM TO BENT WITH SO MANY LOOPHOLES ACROSS EUROPE AND BEYOND THAT ENSURE THESE BIG CORPORATIONS ARE ABLE TO PAY ALMOST ZERO TAX? literally the cleaners who clean phil greens office on their £6 an hour, are probably paying a bigger proportion in tax than the billionaire?

This angers me the most..........Companies like Starbucks who say they are a Corporation and because they are not registered in the UK then they are not subject to it's Tax laws....

UTTER BOLLOCKS.........every transaction every cup of coffee they sell in the UK needs to be taxed and the Govt should be able to collect that Tax, the full amount

Drives me mad the way rich and powerful companies can dodge their Tax commitments by playing the system...........!!!!!

[arista]

They are not Dodging Tax
they are within UK laws and legal.


Tax Laws need to be changed



Life In The Fast Lane

[James]

Is it just me or does anyone else that things in this country aren't that bad?

There's always going to be some injustices or whatever but those are the things that are highlighted so much by the media, and brought to our attention.

[Kizzy]

Is it just me or does anyone else that things in this country aren't that bad?

There's always going to be some injustices or whatever but those are the things that are highlighted so much by the media, and brought to our attention.

Injustices or whatever? What does that even mean, you're unhappy with the information that the media wants you to know.
would you prefer to remain ignorant to the decisions made by the powers that be that directly or indirectly affect every aspect on your life now and in the future?

[Jack_]

QPKKQnijnsM

The UK equivalent:

aOJ93tAbPP0

[Kizzy]

Can't see those till my lass comes in with her magic phone :(

[sassysocks]

From Newsnight.

3YR4CseY9pk

Awesome.

:worship:

Well I have never been a fan of Brand but he owned Paxman in that interview. I can't help but agree with a lot of what he says, and his strong and genuine feelings on the subject were obvious. Voting changes nothing - so why vote, Paxman actually came across as quite naive in his insistence that contirubuting to a failing system by simply voting was in any way productive.

Maybe if enough people stopped voting - they would have to listen. Who knows.

[James]

Injustices or whatever? What does that even mean, you're unhappy with the information that the media wants you to know.
would you prefer to remain ignorant to the decisions made by the powers that be that directly or indirectly affect every aspect on your life now and in the future?

The newspapers (and TV) report on the things that go wrong more than the things that are right because that makes more interesting news. That is fair enough because it what people want to know about - it is driven by public demand. I doubt anyone wants to remain ignorant.

But when you are making decisions about the future direction of the country you have to look at the whole picture.

[James]

QPKKQnijnsM

The UK equivalent:

aOJ93tAbPP0

I watched the UK one and it doesn't say anything about how much actual wealth people have, what their standard of living is or how happy they are.

[the truth]

man alive were worse than the americans

[Kizzy]

The newspapers (and TV) report on the things that go wrong more than the things that are right because that makes more interesting news. That is fair enough because it what people want to know about - it is driven by public demand. I doubt anyone wants to remain ignorant.

But when you are making decisions about the future direction of the country you have to look at the whole picture.

The media ought to reflect an accurate representation of current events and contemporary issues.
However some I feel are attempting to inch away from that, the sociopolitical leanings have never been so apparent.
Is it so unusual to suggest that we may just have a government that is not acting in the best interests of the country?
I'm sure that if they were to get something right it would make the 10 O'clock news if only as an anomaly.....